The reason why Obama will not invoke the 14th Amendment in resolving the ceiling debt crisis:

[Cal33]

It's the right-wing loaded Supreme Court. The 5 Republican-named justices
are well-known for their partisanship.

Isn't this all the more reason to have Clarence Thomas investigated? He
certainly deserves to be investigated, but Dem. politicians seem very
reluctant to do so -- much to the satisfaction of the Repubs.

If the Repubs were to win the White House and the Senate in 2012, they
would literally own the entire government! God help the rest of the nation!

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12888

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Nope.

[Rosco T.]

2. They can try...

"We demand impeachment because he used the constitution to solve this crisis.. we have to do this because the constitution says.. er.. it.. er...we.. er... LOOK IT'S A TERRORIST!!"

[Cali_Democrat]

3. LOL

:thumbsup:

[leveymg]

4. They should have Indicted Clarence Thomas months ago. Instead, they went after Weiner for rocking

the boat and bringing up the issue of Thomas' criminal violations.

One could almost think they want the present Right-wing GOP dominated Court in place to decide this one.

[CakeGrrl]

15. Who's "they"?

If you're referring to the President, your reasoning is that he and his administration backed away from Clarence Thomas so they could get Weiner out of the way, paving the way for the Republican SCOTUS to then call the shots on the President's impeachment.

Really?

:crazy:

[leveymg]

18. Eric Holder. But, no, I don't think Impeachment is part of the Deal.

The original terms may have had more to do with the conservative members of the Court holding off on granting Mandamus on the Virginia HCR law suit. But, the stakes are clearly higher today. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http/www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x608788

[Jakes Progress]

19. Really.

It is exactly the kind of inept political knowhow that has dogged his administration from the beginning.

[leveymg]

24. Inept or malicious.

[Jakes Progress]

26. Why pick one?

[Jakes Progress]

25. Dupe

[FSogol]

5. Think the GOP can win in 2012? The nation will blame Boehner, Cantor, and Baggers

for whatever mess comes out. The GOP is killing their chances. When it came down to it, they couldn't put aside their petty squabbling and do the right thing. Most of America is moderate (and uninterested in politics) but they will notice.

[Cal33]

11. I sure hope the Pubs will lose in 2012. I was thinking that during times of crisis in the past,

the right people somehow seem to just come along at the right moment: During
WW II, Britain had her Churchill, and we had our FDR. And right now, with
the three crazies frothing at their mouths (Corporatists, Neocons and Teabagges),
our nation is in dire straits again, but whom do we have? A Democratic Party
top-heavy with namby-pambys.

[AndyTiedye]

14. Germany Was Not so Fortunate at that time

the right people somehow seem to just come along at the right moment

[DJ13]

6. The REAL reason

If the current debt ceiling is not settled with slashing social programs he doesnt want to eliminate the possibility of using a future debt ceiling as an excuse to slash social programs.

Invoking the 14th would probably eliminate future debt ceiling votes.

[dennis4868]

7. if he does that...

he will get impeached by the Repubs in the House...

[Llewlladdwr]

8. Please.

Please provide a link to the relevant text of the 14th Amendment that authorizes the Executive branch of government to raise revenues. Thanks.

[harun]

9. Public would never stand for it.

[still_one]

10. Not necessarily. Some of those conservative justices are pure Constitutionalist, and they might

just rule in favor of the executive branch

[Cal33]

13. Name those among the five you think are "pure Constitutionalists."

[still_one]

28. Kennedy and ironically perhaps scalia. At worst it will be 5/4 saying the 14th is Constitutional

[Llewlladdwr]

17. Why?

There's no authorization in the 14th for the Executive branch to usurp the Legislative's control of the Federal purse strings. Why would a strict Constitutionalist find authorization where none exists?

[still_one]

29. The validity of the public debt of the U.S., authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment

of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by the Congress.

This money has already been appropriated by the Congress. Insuring that the debt payments are honored is stated in this amendment

[Llewlladdwr]

34. Where?

You've pretty much quoted the entirety of section 4 of the 14th Amendment. Where in there does it say that the United States will not default on its debt? All it says it that the debt is to be considered valid.

And nowhere does it state that the Executive branch gets to take over the Congress' power to raise revenues and borrow monies. It just doesn't.

This entire 14th Amendment argument is a complete waste of time. It simply doesn't allow the President to do anything at all.

[creeksneakers2]

36. If anything, it says the opposite of what he's claiming

The last part of the Amendment reads:

"Section. 5. The CONGRESS shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

[AndyTiedye]

12. The Justices Would Rule for the Repubicans Instantly

They would make it non-precedent-setting, like Bush v. Gore, so as to not
hamstring them if the same comes up with a future Republican President.

[SCantiGOP]

16. The court would turn it down

in my opinion. The provision was clearly put in there so that - as anticpated - when blacks were eventually disenfranchised the Confederate-sympathizing legislatures would not have a way to oppose paying for pensions for Union troops. Every southern state set up a plan funded by the state to pay ex-Confederates, and obviously resented that they were also paying a share of the Union troops. Courts take 'legislative intent' into account when deciding cases. BTW, this is not my opinion, but was a very reasonable explanation by a constitutional law expert on TV the other night.

[Enrique]

20. the GOP is going to sue to force the country into default?

doubtful.

Playing games with legislation is one thing, but filing court papers to force the president to crash the world economy is another.

[SCantiGOP]

21. wouldn't be the GOP

any citizen would have standing to file a suit.

[BobbyBoring]

38. Nothing is below those fuck heads

NOTHING

[damntexdem]

22. He won't now. What will he do on Aug. 3?

And what would the SCOTUS dare do?

[gopbasher12]

23. Yu are right.

Still I would love to see him do it.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Political question doctrine

They probably will not even hear the case.

[Amonester]

30. Because his name is not georgedoubleyoubu$h, so

he's got no free passes. eom

[ProDem4]

31. Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer

He knows the 14th is about not paying any debts incurred by the south after the civil war.

I know we sometimes get caught up in our own progressive views and think fly over country thinks like we do.

But the sober truth is President Obama is in real trouble. We all remember the electoral map.

And The President is in Big Big trouble in Florida Indiana and most likely Ohio.

So who knows how far right he might go.

[JustAnotherGen]

32. They got rid of Wiener

So no investigation of Clarence Thomas.

[DaveofCali]

33. The Supreme Court is NOT in session

The justices are in vacation, and they come back in October. They could probably have an emergency session, but why would they choose to get involved in such a politically charged issue?

[SCantiGOP]

35. SCOTUS doesn't have to be in session

A federal court could overturn it, and then you would wait until the Supremes came back into session to see if they were going to take it up. The federal court decision would stand until and unless the Supremes overturned it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

37. Wouldn't a Constitutional crisis bring down the economy?

If Obama were prohibited from issuing checks to pay the nation's debt for however long a period the resolution of the controversy would require, the Republicans would without any doubt whatsoever be universally blamed for it. They would forever own the bad economy. Personally, I don't think a single Republican, no matter how crazy will move to lay a finger on Obama if he invokes the 14th Amendment. They'll be chastised by their own supporters and especially by the big money contributors.